CCL: CAS orbital selection



 Dear Reinaldo,
 
Thank you for a good reference. However, I am at the moment more interested in diagnosing the multiconfigurational character of a wavefunction based on allready performed CAS.
 Best regards
 Peeter
 
On 08/26/2011 04:29 PM, Reinaldo Pis Diez reinaldo.pisdiez===gmail.com wrote:
 Sent to CCL by: Reinaldo Pis Diez [reinaldo.pisdiez^-^gmail.com]
 Dear Peter,
 Have a look at a paper by Mark Gordon and others, J Chem Phys 110 (1999)
 4199, in which they show how natural orbitals obtained from
 single-reference correlated methods can be used a priori to diagnose the
 multiconfigurational character of a wavefunction.
 Hope this helps.
 Regards,
 Reinaldo
 On 08/26/2011 04:21 AM, Peeter Burk burk::ut.ee wrote:
 
 Sent to CCL by: "Peeter Burk" [burk_._ut.ee]
 Dear CAS experts,
 I am trying my first CAS calculations and having some problems
 connected with active orbital selection (as expected). I understand
 that for choosing right orbitals one should have enough knowledge
 about the system under study or enough time to try all reasonable (?)
 active orbital combinations. I am trying the later approach to get
 some experience by trial and error on some simple systems. Perhaps you
 can help me with the following questions:
 1. Is there a a posteriori indicator that I have included only the
 needed orbitals (after I have tried enough combinations)? C. Cramer
 has a statement in his Essentials of Computational Chemistry that A
 reasonable rule of thumb is that any orbital having an occupation
 number greater than 1.98 or less than 0.02 is not important enough to
 include in the CAS space. However, I find that even for water (as a
 test case at CAS(8,8)/cc-pvdz level) there are 2 virtual orbitals with
 occupancies above that threshold (0.246 and 0.236), two occupied
 orbitals with occupancies less than 1.98 (1.977 and 1.975), and some
 more with occupancies not far from those tresholds. I suspect that for
 more complicated systems the picture will be even more unclear...
 2. Similarly, is there some a posteriori indicator that the
 multideterminant approach was even needed? Chemical intuition (and
 wavefunction instability at RHF/UHF level) can be used for predicting
 the possible need for CAS treatment, but is there a clear indication
 after performing the calculation that CAS was needed (like no
 imaginary frequencies is indicator for the minimum on the PES)?
 Best regards
 Peeter Burk
 University of Tartu, Estoniahttp://www.ccl.net/chemistry/sub_unsub.shtmlConferences:
 
 http://server.ccl.net/chemistry/announcements/conferences/>;
 
begin:vcard
 fn:Peeter Burk
 n:Burk;Peeter
 email;internet:peeter.burk : ut.ee
 tel;work:+372 7375 258
 x-mozilla-html:FALSE
 version:2.1
 end:vcard